There is a simple difference between energy that is produced by burning fossil fuels and energy that is produced through wind and solar methods, and that difference translates to money. Electricity to power businesses and homes is the same product if it is produced by fossil fuel burning or by alternative energy sources, and the debate over which one should be the choice of countries like the United States generally boils down to which one costs more. The argument between the two is confused by discussions of greenhouse gasses and climate change, but consumers will essentially vote with their wallets. They are willing to tolerate a certain amount of damage to their planet and to their health, as long as that damage brings about lower prices. People understand that burning fossil fuels creates pollution and damages the environment to some extent, but are generally willing to ignore that damage in favor of not paying more in monthly bills. Green energy technology produces the same product without environmental damage or pollution, but costs more to produce. Public support tends to lean towards fossil fuels because they produce electricity cheaper. But what if that was not the case? What if it was less expensive to produce power using wind or solar sources, and without any damage to the environment at all? If that was the case the debate would be over.

Fossil fuels rely on an energy source that costs money to harvest, and they also produce jobs in these industries that do so. Burning oil or coal means paying for that fuel source and then converting it into power through a process. Alternative energy fuel sources have no associated cost and also provide jobs, but are more expensive because of the specialized training required, and costs of equipment used in the process. Part of this is because the adoption of these energy sources is not widespread and so we do not see the economies of scale with the producers of equipment and abundance of trained personnel that we see in the fossil fuel industry. With more widespread adoption of clean energy, more supply and demand, we should see the equipment costs start to come down and more jobs created, making clean energy more feasible and attractive.

Damage to equipment in the field is unavoidable in any energy producing site, and primarily damage is caused by weather: wind, temperatures, water and lightning strikes. While damage from wind or water is easily discernible and can be quickly found and fixed, damage from lightning produces a devastating loss but can also produce insidious damage that comes from electrical transients or surges that travel up copper power lines and affect any equipment connected on these lines. The electrical overflow damages the circuitry of the computerized equipment used in the process, which must be replaced in order to restore functionality. These costs must be factored into the final prices paid by consumers in order for the company producing the power to remain profitable. Through the integration of advanced, industrial grade SPDs designed for these industries, the damage produced by lightning strikes can be mitigated to only strike point damage, and much reduced surge related damage. The Strikesorb SPDs designed by Raycap and placed in the correct areas of the site can effectively stop an electrical surge before it damages attached equipment, minimizing costs of repair and replacement and driving down the costs that must be transferred to consumers. Additionally, Raycap’s technology allows for the device to respond without needing to be reset in order to remain functional, thus enabling the systems to stay online even after a lightning surge event. Keeping green energy systems online for longer periods when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining produces more electricity, which also drives the prices paid by consumers down.

The future of green energy lies in the ability to use technological advancements to reduce costs. Once these costs drop below the costs associated with burning coal or oil to produce the same product, the debate is over.